The Role of Reproductive Injustice in the Access of Motherhood for Women With Intellectual Disabilities: A Narrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though becoming a parent and forming meaningful relationships are considered fundamental rights, research shows that there are significant barriers for people with intellectual disabilities within these social roles, as they are still seen as unfit for parenthood. Given limited research knowledge about the reproductive trajectories of women with intellectual disabilities, this paper presents the results of a narrative literature review on reproductive injustices against women with intellectual disabilities. METHODS: We conducted in-depth research within the scientific literature to better understand the reproductive injustice experienced by women with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Thirty-two publications were included in this narrative literature review. The main results are related to the nature and actors involved in the reproductive injustice and six types of discourses underpinning the non-consensual contraception, including sterilisation. CONCLUSION: The findings have implications for future community-based research and intersectoral policies and practices that promote agency and relational autonomy of women with intellectual disabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".